Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Traffic

Denver may yield to longer yellow traffic lights

Study to focus on planned sites for signal cameras

By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published March 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

Related Links

More Traffic

More stories »

Map my news

Denver is re-examining its plans for its first red light cameras after a Rocky Mountain News investigation found that the locations had short yellow lights, which could make the intersections ticket traps and accident hot spots.

Traffic engineers will do a quick study of the four camera locations to determine whether the yellow signal should be increased from the legal minimum of three seconds - timing that's considered appropriate for 25 mph traffic.

The four intersections that Denver has selected have speed limits ranging from 30 to 45 mph, with traffic going faster than that, and other conditions that call for greater yellow time, up to 4.3 seconds or more. Denver, as a matter of policy, has used the three-second minimum at most of its 1,250 signals for decades.

If the yellow-light times are set below recognized standards, drivers can expect two things - hundreds of them will get $75 tickets and many of them will have accidents that otherwise wouldn't have occurred, contrary to the city's goal to increase safety.

"If we want to avoid the appearance that we are trying to trap people, we need to go back and do this (review yellow light timing)," said Brian Mitchell, the city engineering director. "I really want this program to succeed and be above reproach."

Federal guidelines say that detailed traffic engineering studies into other ways to reduce red light running should be completed before installing ticket cameras. The guidelines are voluntary.

Denver's contract with Redflex Traffic Systems was run through the Denver Police Department. City traffic engineer Dave Weaver participated only to the extent of helping Redflex select high-accident, high-volume intersections for the program. Detailed traffic studies weren't made.

Assistant City Attorney Kory Nelson, who is working with the police on the program, endorsed the new look into it. "We want to make sure the appropriate length of yellow lights is there," he said.

Mitchell said that Denver will select four similar intersections where yellow timing will be modified to see if that alone reduces accidents.

Denver's locations are all one- way, multi-lane approaches: the east end of the Sixth Avenue Freeway at Kalamath Street, eastbound Sixth at Lincoln Street, westbound Eighth Avenue at southbound Speer Boulevard and northbound Quebec Street at 36th Avenue.

All have three-second yellow lights for which the standards call for more time. If the yellow is set too short for the existing traffic conditions, drivers must choose between braking hard or running the red.

Numerous studies on red light cameras show that while they can reduce the number of more serious T-bone type crashes, they more often result in a spike in rear-end collisions. Aurora put them in two years ago and the number of tickets and accidents has gone up.

Fort Collins put in cameras on South College Avenue at Drake Road in 1997. For eight years, an average of 166 tickets were generated every month, while the accident rate at the corner went up 83 percent over 10 years.

In August 2005, traffic engineers bumped the yellow light from four seconds to five.

"Within a week, the police called us," said Ward Stanford, acting traffic engineer. "They knew pretty quick we had done something because the infractions went down significantly."

Comments

  • March 29, 2008

    3:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gkb2008 writes:

    Many intersections have a yellow light that is far too short in duration. The length of yellow signals at intersections should increase by one second per each ten mile per hour rise in the speed limit over 25 mph. That would make traffic signals in places where the speed limit is 30 and 35 mph four seconds of yellow and at 40 and 45 mph five seconds. These changes would result in greater safety and less accidents.

  • March 29, 2008

    4:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatdog writes:

    This has been part of the red light camera scam for years...shorten the time from five seconds or so to three. Glad to see it reported in the newspaper in addition to Car and Driver. jkd

  • March 29, 2008

    8:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    FallyBerry writes:

    Seems like the answer to the problem is clearly stated at the end of the article. Screw the cameras, and extend the yellow lights. Free up police to do something else besides traffic enforcement.

  • March 29, 2008

    8:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Steve writes:

    Denver is skipping an important step with these red light cameras. Before they put these things in, they should make sure all the stop lights use sensors to detect vehicle presence. Time and time again I'll sit at a red light when no cars are coming from the cross streets. The light is red for no reason, and it's a waste of my time. Hell yeah I'm going to run red lights (just as they turn) because the there are so many low budget red lights around colorado I can't trust them to change green when they ought to and I can't trust them to stay green when they should. Why the heck should I sit at a red light if no cars are coming?

    Sometimes I'll even sit at a red light and the light is red for the cross street too! WTF? I'm from the east coast and all the red lights in my area, and all up and down the coast that I remember had sensors. Moving to CO was surprising because so many lights were sensorless. I'd be in the middle of nowhere sitting at a red light with not another car in sight.

    You've all heard the joke: How do you identify a colorado driver? He's the last one to run the red light (in a string of cars that are all running the red light). It's funny but true. IMO that's because there are so many crappily operated red lights, that nobody trusts them and nobody wants to stop at them. If people could trust that the lights would change in an efficient way, less people would run the lights.

    So Denver doesn't have to break out the heavy hand of law enforcement (these cameras) to solve this problem, all they need to do is get red lights that serve us better. (To be more fair and balanced (like Fox news), you need to enforce the law too, but getting sensor based red lights would solve some of the problem)

    ---------------------

    And on another note if you don't want to get busted by these cameras, get a clear plastic coating over your license plate. They're legal and I hear the camera's flash bounces off the plastic and doesn't get your plate numbers. I never did it but that's the rumor. We had a lot of these cameras in MD.

  • March 29, 2008

    11:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    renaldo_phlegm writes:

    The first thing Denver should do, and I'd bet it's on the list of voluntary federal guidelines, is TIME THE LIGHTS! Sensors would be nice but obvioulsy require equipment upgrades, whereas timing the lights only requires the crews we're already paying to get out and do a little work. As they're hiring an outside firm it's clear they don't want to spend money but rather just make money by giving out tickets, so I wouldn't expect sensors to be installed for triggered lights. However, aside from Broadway between downtown and I-25, there don't appear to be any timed lights in the city; certainly not on eastbound or westbound 6th/8th Ave., University, Colorado Blvd. or Quebec. On north bound Monaco, there's a light one block past Alameda which turns and stays red as soon as the light at Alameda turns green, even though it only serves an apartment complex and residential area, and there are typically no cars waiting there. Considering the price of gas and issues with smog and pollution, timing traffic lights would be an inexpensive and effective solution to many of these problems.

  • March 29, 2008

    12:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AC writes:

    But if yellow lights are properly timed, the red light cameras won't make millions for anyone -- city or vendor. That's why Denver was going ahead with three seconds of yellow, to make more money. If it was all about safety, the city would have retimed the yellows even before hiring a camera company. Let's see what the new study shows. I bet they still leave drivers with too short yellows.

  • March 29, 2008

    2:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    Cameras verses Privacy; Automation verses Human Nature? Ready for the trade; can you bear the recording of your every deed? How about accountability for the frailties of your very nature? Big brother lacks trust, shouldn't we? Questions anyone?

  • March 29, 2008

    2:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gfargo writes:

    Lengthening the yellow lights will have some effect, but if you really want to prevent accidents, lengthen the guard interval between the red light and the crossing green light. If you hold off the green light a few seconds, the yellow light tail-enders will have cleared the intersection before the cross traffic can start up. This solution is simple and universal.

  • March 29, 2008

    4:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    diamondstay writes:

    I agree with gfargo. Don't let the traffic cross the street until the cross traffic has a red light for second or two. Is it really that difficult to figure out?

    These other solutions to generate revenue for the city like cameras are no solutions at all. They are putting the public at risk. The very folks we're hiring to protect us are creating systems that penalize us either with tickets or accidents. What nonsense!

  • March 29, 2008

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AC writes:

    Denver and most cities here already do what fargo suggests. All-red is pretty standard. It's used at 6th and Kalamath, as I go through there daily and have noticed it. But extending the yellow is crucial because it's the time when it's legal to enter the intersection. Too short a yellow combined with higher speed on approach equals red light camera cash cow. It's entrapment. Besides, it's not about safety at all. Nearly 100 percent of all red light running is in the first second and a half, those are people who weren't given the right correct yellow time. With the two second all red at Kalamath, not a single one of them is a safety hazard. Denver just wants $75 per 200 drivers a day per 365 days per year equals $5.47 million. All from people driving safely but caught in a short yellow. If it were really about safety the city would have already extended the yellow years ago, like most other cities, and ended the problem.

  • March 29, 2008

    5:49 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    suburbdweller writes:

    Aurora figured out that they could make money by putting up cameras at corners where the left turn arrow is usually too short for the number of people waiting in line to get through, like at Mississippi and Chambers.

    Nobody likes to sit through the same light twice, so someone unaware of the cameras is always likely to push the envelope to squeak through the light. Presto! Guaranteed income for the city.

    Unfortunately some who ARE aware of the cameras apparently fear a yellow-light trap like in Denver, or think the camera will go off under yellow. I was following someone through the left turn there when the left-turn arrow turned yellow just as he was about to enter the intersection---plenty of time for both of us to get through---when he slammed on the brakes so hard I nearly rear-ended him.

    Risks we all must take, I guess, to ensure the city has enough revenue. It certainly isn't about safety.

  • March 29, 2008

    9:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rj1967 writes:

    How come all these sorts of articles are always about Denver, Denver, Denver??? Seventy five percent of the metro area population lives outside the city and county of Denver, yet every snowfall or pot hole season all we hear about is how good or bad Denver did with the situation. Aurora and Lakewood have almost as many residents as Denver does, but Denver media doesn't blow any smoke up those politicians a..es. Why not??? If you want to be the metro area's newspaper, then represent the rest of us too.

  • March 31, 2008

    3:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ItsJustme writes:

    It's easy to avoid getting a camera ticket for running the red light. Just wait two seconds after it turns red and then run it. The camera will have already snapped the picture for that cycle and you won't be in the intersection yet. If you practice, you can guage your speed and do this without even having to slow down. There is a certain down-side to doing this, however.
    </tongue from cheek>

  • March 31, 2008

    9:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    OpenYourEyes writes:

    Paintballers, see your targets?

  • April 1, 2008

    3:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    tellmenow41 writes:

    ooh... should've bought those "camera safe" license plate covers.

  • April 2, 2008

    5:15 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    sheepherder writes:

    Just an idea...slow down and stop on yellow and red...not speed up and gun it through the intersections. It's not the cities fault...it's crappy Colorado drivers.

  • April 2, 2008

    5:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    junglegymco writes:

    Most folks don't know that a camera ticket isn't valid in a court of law until you are served it PHYSICALLY by an officer of the court (typically a Denver Sheriff). Yeah, they can mail it to you and threaten you etc., but until they can prove that you actually RECEIVED the ticket, it isn't an offense that can go on your record. And if they can't ever serve you the ticket, then eventually they have to drop it. FYI.

  • April 2, 2008

    10:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    plzgetreal writes:

    Sheepherder, you have a lot of nerve interjecting rational thought into this me first, me first, screw you debate. I know I'm getting old, but I remember being taught in Driver's Education that the yellow light meant decelerate in preparation to stop at the red light. These are probably some of the same people who pull the illegal lane changes when they make turns at the intersection. You the ones I’m talking about, crossing over every lane because they think they are all theirs.

  • April 2, 2008

    11:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    AC writes:

    Actually, sheepherder and plzgetreal, the yellow light means red is coming. The law expects you to stop only if you can, and to proceed if you are too close to stop. Think it through... if you are too close to the light when it turns yellow, you HAVE to go through and you're SUPPOSED to. The problem here, as the story points out, is that Denver has set that yellow light for too short a time. The effect will be people getting tickets for the city's own shortcomings. Fix the lights before you start the cameras, Denver.

  • April 4, 2008

    2:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ztliano writes:

    I feel trapped by these cameras. I agree they should only take pictures of cars CLEARLY violating red lights, but tricking people with short yellow lights is unfair. I'm sure all of us have sped through yellow lights and unfortunately made it when it turned red. We should not be ticketed for this!!!! Only if it was red for a long time and a car clearly didn't care about traffic stop light should a car (owner) get ticketed. but of course that only helps safety not the city's bottom line.